Why railing against the norm is futile.

Hold this thought. Identity is a big thing nowadays. But our identity - the very clothing we wear, is: Inseparable from normative social processes Fragile, socially unstable In sum, a social construct Thus, if our being is grounded in identity; yet we decry from this perch of supposedly immutable "identity", the social norms that created us, we yearn for not only the destruction or revision of the norm, but ourselves. A few months ago I made a similar point against an undeserving target, but didn't fully explain the "why", or how this pattern of "railing against the norm" develops in some of the truly dystonic members of our community. As someone who is very pragmatic and utilitarian with respect to civil society and organizing, I get criticized by "radicals" and other such simpletons, as so: That I am desperate to prove above 10, 15, 20% (or whatever) of men are hebephiles, because the more normal and "natural" the better. That I have a deep-seated need to prove that pedophilic males are at most equally or less "psychopathic" on average than nonpedophilic males, assuming that makes them inherently "better" individuals. Ditto, left-handedness, various forms of "mental illness", etc. Do I care about any of this at the level of realpolitik, or social engineering? Sure, it's a game and somebody's got to play it. I'm not a pedo myself, but I do find it somewhat entertaining that our cherished scientific model detects higher levels of "empathy" in these men. Nature's perverted justice. Do I really give a damn whether or not pedophiles are "normal" or "deviant/freak"? No. If you pretend I do, you only do so to vainly convince yourself you are somehow inherently better than me. So here I am, out of character telling you it's a supremist fantasy; reverse-mental-engineering for the midwit. Let's take two of those identities most commonly assumed to be "scientifically correlated"; pedophilia and psychopathy. The younger, anti-contact portion of our community like to pretend both of those identities are "misunderstood", but ultimately stable concepts. Concepts that can ultimately be "scientifically finessed" or collectively labelled toward "validation" if only we apply enough meticulous positivist method and liberal education. At the same time, they impotently rail against the norm, fists clenched, summoning every last drop of "critical analysis" for the oppressive social superstructure. But what said individuals - neo pedophiles, tumblr labeling fandom, fail to understand is the fact these identities are themselves inseparable from social norms. Indeed, they depend on norms, and would not even exist without them. Take pedophilia: Pedo = Child. The most we can possibly finesse a child, is to draw its boundary at puberty. A child is a human being before puberty. Materially, perhaps we have a boundary. Philia = Attraction. This is a lot harder to define, and will ultimately depend on what a culture deems to be attraction, or deems to be included in that category. That entire debate could command sweeping demographic shifts as to who is one and who is not. The pedophile construct is thus inextricable from social norms. Take psychopathy: Psych = Mind. We have never been able to trace anything approaching the physical manifestation of a "thought". What is mind, anyway? What is spirit? It all depends on social norms. Path = Illness. What is deemed to be fit, healthy, unwell or "mad" is entirely subject to social norms, and meaning-making. The psychopath construct would not exist but for social norms - indeed, like the pedophile, it is a recent invention and deeply unstable. So in conclusion: A modern pedophile, or mental illness activist declares he will not change one bit and rails against the norm. When they demand society change what it considers to be a normative state of mind, they speak not for a recognition of their identity, but rather its abolition. And perhaps the creation of a new subnormal from the resulting chaos. Has this single strategy worked at any point in history, for any people? I don't know. I doubt it very much. And that is why I, myself, prefer to work for gains that can be realized within the norm. Challenging assumptions and hypocrisy. Correcting "facts". Doing "science". Creating an environment where denial no longer makes sense. And perhaps using the dominant culture; media; capitalism (including its political play-actors) to shift social norms in the only observable, controllable way history tells me is possible. Slowly, reflectively and fashionably.